support the Marine acused of murder

anyway wasn't this the same survey that we have discussed before that found Sadam was still one of the top 5 most respected polititians and Alawi had absolutely no support?
Nope
is it also the survey that found iraqis felt humiliated by the US invasion? Nope. Are you just making stuff up?

naaa not making stuff up... just remember another survey a month or two back. (after august when this was done) that sounded very similar. and i know it's been discussed in politics.

Is the brooklyn bridge up for sale still? i might have a few ppl interested ;)

I dont know anything about that survey but again i dont trust shit coming from Zogby.

naaa not making stuff up... just remember another survey a month or two back. (after august when this was done) that sounded very similar. and i know it's been discussed in politics.

You're probably right. I forget what I talked about yesterday sometimes.

someone should put a poll up, im interested to see how many people, regardless of there opinion of iraq, think the marine should be charged with murder.

Put up your own poll if your interested.


The guy is being investigated. A different marine was just convicted of murder in Iraq and nobody is talking about that one. Know why? It wasn't on film.

No one knows what knid of situation this was. He may have heard that other sites were boobytrapped and thought these insurgents were waiting to jump up and shoot them. I say leave him alone. This kind of shit happens and the only reason we know about it is because of the damn media. War isn't pretty and don't punish those who play the game. The Marines have my full support in this war, although i don't believe in its cause entirely.

Kill them before they kill you. Leave them and they live to fight you another day.

How About Fuck Off Out Of Their Country And They Won't Try And Kill You.

America started this war, not the Iraqi's. America are the aggressors. I feel for the marines, but if there wasn't support for invading other peoples countries then right now they wouldn't be there, and neither would Bush. Fact is, post election america has shown that they want to be there, and therefore i figure they deserve what they get. however little it is in comparison to what they dish out.

How About Fuck Off Out Of Their Country And They Won't Try And Kill You.

I wonder if that excuse works if people along the boarder with Mexico start shooting people entering the US illegally....

I wonder if that excuse works if people along the boarder with Mexico start shooting people entering the US illegally....

Telling words those....

I think that excuse would hold very well if, before entering illegally, they lobbed a few bombs in. Then, while entering illegally, they were also shooting people and blowing shit up.

haha how far is the bush ranch from the border? would be funny to make him wank for the camera on the way by.... stack up the georges.. that kind of thing.

I wonder if that excuse works if people along the boarder with Mexico start shooting people entering the US illegally....
Well, if the Mexican President decided one day that your leader was a threat to the world,announced that he intended to fly in the face of the UN and enter your country without any mandate, and plamed it all on a handtull of Guatamalans armed with box cutters,i'd say sure,shoot any damn Mexican who comes into your country looking for trouble.The idiot Mexican President would be the most obvious target though.

I don't normally bother to debate finer points with those who just come to this forum to mouth off, but for you I will make an exception.As a former servant of her Majesty in the Royal Navy, with active duty experience,I am fully familiar with the Geneva Convention.If you dont believe that the Marines should be following it in Iraq you are a spineless coward who supports state-sponsored terrorism.Please dont tell me to have a nice day,I'd rather you crawled back under your rock and died slowly.


Apparently active service in the Royal Navy does not in any way assure one has a knowledge of the Geneva convention because the United States (and her allies) are not currently fighting uniformed combatants in Iraq.

According to the Geneva Convention soldiers must be fighting in uniform to be protected by the convention. And, since you apparently are clueless regarding the convention let me mention a few other items in the convention that are interesting regarding the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq.

According to the convention soldiers must not intentionally cause harm to the populace. According to the convention combatants should respect places of worship whenever possible and avoid fighting/ambushing from the same. The insurgents violate these openly and daily so even if they were uniformed they are not observing it and therfore are not protected by it.

The list goes on but the most interesting bit of the convention is that a nation must have previously recognized said convention and undertaken something of an effort to obey it's rules in order to enjoy it's privelages wether in uniform or otherwise.

If we were to follow the convention to the letter we would execute virtually every insurgent we caught in Iraq as a criminal of some sort or another. You imply above that if we do not follow the convention to the letter we are terrorists. So, since we are not executing all of these men as spies, criminals, what-have-you....we are then terrorists? Nice logic Taranaki..lol

It is to our credit that we generally observe the convention in regard to fighting these gangsters even though the convention does not apply to them! And, the rock I crawled out from under would appear to have something yours does not...a copy of the Geneva convention....:)

So in summation, the U.S. has generally oberved the Geneva convention in a conflict with persons unprotected by the Geneva convention, but according to old Taro and those like him we are still violating it....and are terrorists because of it. And you wonder why we do not care what so many like you think.

beautiful. unfortunately only signiataries need to follow the convention. as the fighters in Iraq have not signed it they can fight from whatever mosques and churches they like and they can harm the civilian population. The US does even though they signed so why nobody else?

your not saying that because america signed it everyone has to follow it are you. oh dear.

the uniform thing has been discussed before. define a uniform. even without the uniform, enemy combatants are afforded some protections.

beautiful. unfortunately only signiataries need to follow the convention. as the fighters in Iraq have not signed it they can fight from whatever mosques and churches they like and they can harm the civilian population. The US does even though they signed so why nobody else?

your not saying that because america signed it everyone has to follow it are you. oh dear.

the uniform thing has been discussed before. define a uniform. even without the uniform, enemy combatants are afforded some protections.

Um, do you even know what you just said? Forgive me my Farsi is a bit rusty. lol

I am glad to know that you have discussed the uniform issue before. Unfortunately it would appear you did not gather much from that conversation as the Convention expressly states that soldiers will not enter into combat dressed as the populace for a variety of reasons
including the danger this presents to the civilian populace. If you did discuss the uniform issue it was apparently without the aide of someone who had actually read it.

The only instance where it has been considered acceptable (and this is a grey area in itself) in the enforcement of the convention for soldiers to be out of uniform is if their uniform was somehow destroyed. Even then if you use this advantage to attempt to hide within the populace or ambush from the same you forfeit any consideration

If you want to delve into the pathetic liberal argument "that depends on what the definition of "is" is more power to you. Just do not expect it to pass anybody elses smell test.

However, should you actually bother to read the Convention it does not bind a country to its rules when fighting a foe that neither obeys or recognizes the Convention. In fact, if you are fighting an enemy that is fighting from religious places, etc. even if that nation is a signee that previously recognized the convention they forfeit their protection under the convention by violating it. Put simply, the convention implies that once a force openly violates and disregards the Convention the golves are off anyway. It is ridiculous (and blatantly untrue) to propose that the Convention requires a signee to observe the sanctity of a mosque while being attacked from it.

In conclusion, as I have said before, it is to America's credit that we generally obey the rules of the Convention against a foe that does not do the same and does not recognize and is therfore not protected by the Convention.

AS I SAID BEFORE. THEY DIDN'T SIGN IT SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT.

AMERICAS CREDIT THAT THEY FOLLOW SOME OF WHAT THEY ARE OBLIGED TO DO AND HAVE A CONTRACTUAL AND MORAL OBLIGATION TO DO. YEAH RIGHT. And america is there to raise the standards of life for these people.

as for attacking the mosque great, no debate, if they are fighting from there you have to clear it. The fact that they cleared it way beforehand, forgot to pick up the wounded, then went back to kill the survivors somehow still doesn't "smell" right. Neglecting to pick up the wounded was either incompetence or inhumane. they shouldn't have had to go back, this situation was avoidable in the first place.


i was under the impression that America was there to raise standards not sink to new lows. raising standards my ass. this is SO off topic.

However, should you actually bother to read the Convention it does not bind a country to its rules when fighting a foe that neither obeys or recognizes the Convention. In fact, if you are fighting an enemy that is fighting from religious places, etc. even if that nation is a signee that previously recognized the convention they forfeit their protection under the convention by violating it. Put simply, the convention implies that once a force openly violates and disregards the Convention the golves are off anyway. It is ridiculous (and blatantly untrue) to propose that the Convention requires a signee to observe the sanctity of a mosque while being attacked from it.

Interesting observation. I've never read the Convention, thus I had been declining to include it in any of my arguments; however, I can certainly understand the U.S. being free from it if the opposition does not follow it.

However, that does not change the fact that a wounded, unarmed Iraqi was shot without blatant provocation. If what the marine did was completely justified, then he is innocent, and should be free to go. However, none of us are in a position to make the decision of whether or not he was justified in his actions, and that's why I would like to see a trial commence, if, at the very least, to be fair to the Iraqi population that the U.S. declares itself to be so genuinely concerned about...

besides. if these aresn't enemy soldiers then they are civilians. they may well therefore be guilty of murder. and may be sentanced to death. but marines nor police have the power to judge someone like that. If this was a police officer caught on tape killing an unarmed person it would seem equally wrong. lets not mention the fact they are WAY out of their juristiction.

If Sadam and his evil sidekicks weren'ty allowed to sentance people to death like that then why should a US soldier? What was the humanitarian mission again?

Last night I watched a Special Forces officer sum it up this way: Al Queda is a group of fanatical murderers. We do not capture them, they do not want to be captured. We kill every one of them we find, and will continue to do so."

AS I SAID BEFORE. THEY DIDN'T SIGN IT SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT.

AMERICAS CREDIT THAT THEY FOLLOW SOME OF WHAT THEY ARE OBLIGED TO DO AND HAVE A CONTRACTUAL AND MORAL OBLIGATION TO DO. YEAH RIGHT.

i was under the impression that America was there to raise standards not sink to new lows. i was under the impression that the convention required the signiataries to adhere to it in their treatment of prisoners, regardless of whether the people they caught were also signiataries. then again.... this whole war is about misleading the public in why and how.... so last weeks reasons don't really count for shit now huh. why would an agreement from that long ago.

raising standards my ass. this is SO off topic.



Again, might I direct you to read the Convention before citing it. You are incorrect, the Convention states that it affords the protection we are discussing only to signees of the convention. If you signed it you agree to observe these protections for everyone else who signed it. Not overly complex. There are protections afforded to peoples not affiliated with signees, but they have nothing to do with this discussion.

Non combatants are afforded protection no matter where they come from which leads many to believe the same is true of anyone including these terrorists...it is not. You might also have been misled by the fact that uniformed soldiers from countries/forces not violating the convention are afforded some protections by the convention. However, as we stated above these guys are not in uniform and would appear to have a policy of not honoring the convention.

And, that particular tidbit only actually applies to uniformed soldiers somehow caught in a war their nation is not actually participating in. An example of this would be the Russians and Germans fighting on Polish soil after Germany invaded. Imagine that the Poles already surrendered and are no longer an active combatant so techincally there is war taking place in their nation which they are not participating in. If the Russians capture a uniformed Polish soldier who is not aiding the Germans, since the Poles are not involved in the war on any side any longer he is afforded some protection wether his nation is a signee or not. Nothing like this applies in the scenario being discussed.

Wounded and sick soldiers are afforded protection by the Convention, but only if they have not being abusing this protection to make attacks. Even a signee would void their right to this protection under the convention by doing so. Booby trapping bodies or using this as an opportunity to ambush forfeits this protection. Even without readin the convention one would think common sense would tell people this. And once again, we are not fighting a signee of the Convention.

As for civilians and the like America does not need a convention to have a policy of respecting life as much as possible. The criminals here are the terrorists/insurgents not us. If you disagree, and I know that you do, so be it. War crimes happen in every military just as they do in every society. However, the US military has policy of not tolerating such activities and that makes the difference. The forces we are fighting are criminal organizations not simply organizations with criminals in them.

And, actually this is the topic as the Marine is being accused by some of a war crime. And while it can be argued that the term "war crime" means different things to different people it does help when those doing the accusing know what a war-crime is according to any general standard.

In conclusion your argument, even though it is fundamentally flawed, would at least be more convincing if you knew more about the Geneva Convention. I would also help if you stuck to a basic line of thinking and built upon it. That rant at the end of your last post just sounded desperate and did not exactly help your argument either.

:)

besides. if these aresn't enemy soldiers then they are civilians. they may well therefore be guilty of murder. and may be sentanced to death. but marines nor police have the power to judge someone like that. If this was a police officer caught on tape killing an unarmed person it would seem equally wrong. lets not mention the fact they are WAY out of their juristiction.

If Sadam and his evil sidekicks weren'ty allowed to sentance people to death like that then why should a US soldier? What was the humanitarian mission again?

Ah, once again we see a basic lack of understanding regarding the Convention. These are not soldiers, but they are not civilians either and that assumption is ridiculous. Their actions and tactics make them spies who can be shot on site even if from a signee nation.

Again, try to find a sound foundation for your argument and build upon it. The above looks desperate too.

i guess theres a fine line in appearance between desperation and exhaustion.

i still think the guy should be put on trial. to say that he is innocent before a proper investigation is rediculous. I'm inclined to believe that he should be innocent, and the people who left wounded there without care for long enough for them to be perceived as a threat again should be jailed.

Interesting observation. I've never read the Convention, thus I had been declining to include it in any of my arguments; however, I can certainly understand the U.S. being free from it if the opposition does not follow it.

However, that does not change the fact that a wounded, unarmed Iraqi was shot without blatant provocation. If what the marine did was completely justified, then he is innocent, and should be free to go. However, none of us are in a position to make the decision of whether or not he was justified in his actions, and that's why I would like to see a trial commence, if, at the very least, to be fair to the Iraqi population that the U.S. declares itself to be so genuinely concerned about...


See TRD, check out the above. Do I agree with the Heep? No. Does Heep build on a basic argument that he can at least support. Yes.

i guess theres a fine line in appearance between desperation and exhaustion.

i still think the guy should be put on trial. to say that he is innocent before a proper investigation is rediculous. I'm inclined to believe that he should be innocent, and the people who left wounded there without care for long enough for them to be perceived as a threat again should be jailed.

I could live with an investigation into the matter that would lead to a trial if the facts supported it which is exactly what is happening now. However, I have to say this would really not make much difference as any lawyer defending the Marine would say "these guys reguarly disregard the convention and general rules of conduct in war so he is a threat" and it would never get anywhere near a trial.

Last night I watched a Special Forces officer sum it up this way: Al Queda is a group of fanatical murderers. We do not capture them, they do not want to be captured. We kill every one of them we find, and will continue to do so."


If those are his orders, then the White House needs to publicly admit that it has authorised use of illegal tactics and is knowingly guilty of war crimes.

If those are nopt his orders, he should be courtmartialed. If Al Quaeda is intent on killing everyone who opposes them they are fanatical murderers.If Special Forces are intent on doing the same, then they must logically be the same.

Can somebody promise me that i won't get baned for expressing my opinion? I have something to say that some may disagree and act a little violent.

Can somebody promise me that i won't get baned for expressing my opinion? I have something to say that some may disagree and act a little violent.

You won't get banned. (I'm a moderator)

Please phrase whatever you want to say as diplomatically and thoughtfully as possible, and please don't make any personal attacks on any members.

Other than that, speak your mind :)

I won't sign it. In my opinion, the marine did wrong. From the online information as well as the video, the place was already checked beforehand and these marines were there just to pick up the wounded. The first group of marines already came through first and thus they had to check anyone of any weapons. This way the second group can pick them up. It wouldn't make sense for the first group not to check for any weapons cause that would put the second group of marines in jeapardy when they came to pick up the wounded. The marine either snapped, or committed cold blooded murder just because he wanted revenge over what happened to his buddy a few days earlier. Or Both. Regardless an investigation should be conducted. If the military court decides he did no wrong doing, then so be it. But with the evidense of the video and what I've just said of the first group clearing out any weapons, I will find it hard to believe he'll go scott free.

On a lighter note, back from page 4...Just cuz you don't see something doesn't mean it's not there. I've been to the States many times, visited New York last summer. I thought the people in Queens were very pleasant people, but there were the ignorant ones too....is that BS as well?Woo hoo, go Queens.
:lol:

Seriously, I never met a Canadian I did not like. They are all friendly and
and nice. When us US citizens were France Bashing happy a while back and including the French Canadians, I felt ashamed.
As for my bad experiences in the USA, call BS if you want, it doesn't change what's happened. I've never been to Texas so I have no idea what people are like there. I shouldn't be biased against the whole of the U.S. as nearly every state feels differently. I do, in fact, like the people in Florida, Alabama, and Maine, but some other states, notably New York, Mass., and Georgia are extremely rude, obnoxious, and ignorant towards Canadians,Sorry to hear that the New Yorkers treated you bad Heep. We are all not like that.

Anyway back on topic,

I find it amazing that there is another military personnel that did the same thing (I believe Yogs brought it up) and yet he is not being investigated. Just because there was not camera crew does not justify that he did not wrong.

TS out

"Just because there was not camera crew does not justify that he did not wrong."

unfortunately there seems to be something about this whole stink invasion that goes by, it's not about justice, its about what you can get away with.

Sorry to hear that the New Yorkers treated you bad Heep. We are all not like that.


Actually you've been proven correct, as I was chatting for a while last night with a young guy who's been a New Yorker his whole life, and he was very pleasant. Though I suppose he should be, seeing as he married the girl that's lived down the street from me her/my whole life :D

I fail to see the relevance of this statement.The murderer fired his weapon because he believed his victim was still alive.

There seems to be a notion that somehow it's ok for bad things to happen in good wars.I'd go along with that notion,save for the fact that this is not a 'good' war.It's been a pack of lies from the word go.

Ask yourself who was responsible for Sept 11.Was it a bunch of 'insurgents' fighting for their own country in Fallujah? Like fuck.

This war is a crock and the man that started it should be impeached.

They say that dissent is patriotic. Maybe it's true. It seems you are very loyal to Saddam's regime.
I'm not even going to discuss the fact that everyone believed there were weapons and all that, not just Bush. But come on. The insurgents are just innocent good people defending their country? Wrong! They're people who were loyal to Saddam or Bin Laden and trying to keep the Iraqis from being free. They are terrorists. I can't believe someone would think they are innocent good people.

They say that dissent is patriotic. Maybe it's true. It seems you are very loyal to Saddam's regime.
I'm not even going to discuss the fact that everyone believed there were weapons and all that, not just Bush. But come on. The insurgents are just innocent good people defending their country? Wrong! They're people who were loyal to Saddam or Bin Laden and trying to keep the Iraqis from being free. They are terrorists. I can't believe someone would think they are innocent good people.


U just love CNN dont you? :rolleyes:

I'm not even going to discuss the fact that everyone believed there were weapons and all that, not just Bush.

I didn't right from the get-go. Clearly my Prime Minister didn't think so either because he went against American pressure to join the fight and decided to stay out of it.

The insurgents are just innocent good people defending their country? Wrong! They're people who were loyal to Saddam or Bin Laden and trying to keep the Iraqis from being free. They are terrorists. I can't believe someone would think they are innocent good people.

Would you defend your country if it were being taken over by people raving about how evil your government is? Guess what - you'd be one of the oh-so-evil insurgents. I dare you to go ask that 10 year old Iraqi found with gun in hand if he's trying to terrorize the world, or if he just wants his home back. Oh wait, you can't. Your country killed him.

Would you defend your country if it were being taken over by people raving about how evil your government is? Guess what - you'd be one of the oh-so-evil insurgents. I dare you to go ask that 10 year old Iraqi found with gun in hand if he's trying to terrorize the world, or if he just wants his home back. Oh wait, you can't. Your country killed him.


You're really reaching for a moral equivelence there Heep. Once people start playing the "what-if" game, there really isn't much that can't be justifidied or demeaned.

I didn't right from the get-go. Clearly my Prime Minister didn't think so either because he went against American pressure to join the fight and decided to stay out of it.




Would you defend your country if it were being taken over by people raving about how evil your government is? Guess what - you'd be one of the oh-so-evil insurgents. I dare you to go ask that 10 year old Iraqi found with gun in hand if he's trying to terrorize the world, or if he just wants his home back. Oh wait, you can't. Your country killed him.


So wait? Are you saying Saddam was not evil? If the US were being taken over, yes, I would be an 'insurgent'. But last time I checked, Bush was not operating rape rooms, torturing children in front of their parents, and taking out whole towns with chemical gases. As for the ten year old Iraqi... poor kid. A product of Muslim extremism just doing what he has been taught. But guess what? There are ten year old kids in the middle east shooting people just for being christian, because that is what they were taught. You've got to understand that the middle east is a hotbed of hatred right now, and if we stand by and let it fester then it's only going to get worse. No, we did not cause this hatred. If you would pay attention to history you'd realize that these countries have been violent and warring since biblical times.

P.S. good for your prime minister. I bet right now he is sitting back in his office sipping a glass of wine, patting himself on the back thinking about all the "great things" he's done for world peace, while people elsewhere are actually doing something about it.

U just love CNN dont you? :rolleyes:

excuse me? CNN is the american version of al jezeera

excuse me? CNN is the american version of al jezeera


And did i say i believe al-jazeera?? I didn't think so.

You're really reaching for a moral equivelence there Heep. Once people start playing the "what-if" game, there really isn't much that can't be justifidied or demeaned.
I believe you're right about that, but nevertheless I feel "what-if" questions need to be asked. So many times we assume everyone is just like us, and want all the same things as us. We need to ask "what-if" questions to avoid such assumptions that just escalate situations. What if they don't want us invading? What if these people don't know how to live outside of a Saddam style government, and will fail with anything else? What if we were Iraqi?

Endless questions that can never be answered. I just feel they are necessary to help us better understand others.
So wait? Are you saying Saddam was not evil?
I never said that, and never will say that. In fact, if you'd read elsewhere, you'd know that I'm also very anti-Saddam.
But last time I checked, Bush was not operating rape rooms, torturing children in front of their parents, and taking out whole towns with chemical gases.
Another thing I've said before is that Bush deserves one kick in the nuts for every two that Saddam gets. I feel Saddam is a horrible person, and is worse than Bush, but I certainly don't see Bush as the world's savior.
As for the ten year old Iraqi... poor kid. A product of Muslim extremism just doing what he has been taught.
Perhaps. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right - neither of us will ever know. But the simple fact that the boy was gunned down while defending against people invading his home suggests, to me at least, that he wasn't trying to terrorize anyone. In fact, we don't even know that he was Muslim, like you've just claimed.
You've got to understand that the middle east is a hotbed of hatred right now, and if we stand by and let it fester then it's only going to get worse.
Indeed it is. However, in my opinion at the least, one nation of hate is just being overthrown by another nation of hate. (Not all Americans are like this, neither are all Iraqis - I'm talking about countries as wholes) America (and unfortunately enough, most countries) has a record, past and present of hating Iraqis, of hating Muslims, of hating blacks, of hating gays, of hating neighbours, whatever.

Basically I just don't see the US having any right to proclaim themselves holier than anyone else, nor invading upon that premise.P.S. good for your prime minister. I bet right now he is sitting back in his office sipping a glass of wine, patting himself on the back thinking about all the "great things" he's done for world peace, while people elsewhere are actually doing something about it.
Well, that Prime Minister actually just finished 10 years in office and has been replaced by the next leader of the same political party. However, he's not sitting around patting himself on the back. He's working to fix Canada's problems first, all while committing $300 million to Iraq to clean up the US's mess. Don't make assumptions like that.

So wait? Are you saying Saddam was not evil?




Even if hes bad. As muslims they have to defend there leader against non muslims. Its like goin against your brother.



But last time I checked, Bush was not operating rape rooms, torturing children in front of their parents,




Wheres the proof? Do you know the story behind the men being "tortured?" We never heard of women being raped or children being tortured. The only rape stories we heard is from UDAY only.



A product of Muslim extremism just doing what he has been taught. But guess what? There are ten year old kids in the middle east shooting people just for being christian,



WHat does this have to do with a kid defending his country?



You've got to understand that the middle east is a hotbed of hatred right now, and if we stand by and let it fester then it's only going to get worse. No, we did not cause this hatred. If you would pay attention to history you'd realize that these countries have been violent and warring since biblical times.




Re read history. Muslims, christians and jews lived peace amongst each other. Read the history on the Abbassids.

I never said that, and never will say that. In fact, if you'd read elsewhere, you'd know that I'm also very anti-Saddam.

Another thing I've said before is that Bush deserves one kick in the nuts for every two that Saddam gets. I feel Saddam is a horrible person, and is worse than Bush, but I certainly don't see Bush as the world's savior.

Perhaps. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right - neither of us will ever know. But the simple fact that the boy was gunned down while defending against people invading his home suggests, to me at least, that he wasn't trying to terrorize anyone. In fact, we don't even know that he was Muslim, like you've just claimed.

Indeed it is. However, in my opinion at the least, one nation of hate is just being overthrown by another nation of hate. (Not all Americans are like this, neither are all Iraqis - I'm talking about countries as wholes) America (and unfortunately enough, most countries) has a record, past and present of hating Iraqis, of hating Muslims, of hating blacks, of hating gays, of hating neighbours, whatever.

Basically I just don't see the US having any right to proclaim themselves holier than anyone else, nor invading upon that premise.
Well, that Prime Minister actually just finished 10 years in office and has been replaced by the next leader of the same political party. However, he's not sitting around patting himself on the back. He's working to fix Canada's problems first, all while committing $300 million to Iraq to clean up the US's mess. Don't make assumptions like that.[/QUOTE]

I should have never gotten into such a discussion. I know that the American is always wrong in the eyes of the pacifist intillectuals across the globe. But it's time for these people to address reality. What should have been done in Iraq? The best intelligence in the world believed there were weapons of mass destruction. We know that he had used them in the past. He had invaded neighboring countried in the past. We know he was involved in training terrorists. We know that he had kicked out weapons inspectors in the past, wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections. He wouldn't allow inspectors into certain places... what were we supposed to think? And now we know that he had people from the UN and the countries that were against the war on his payroll so that he could use oil for food money to arm himself instead of feed that 10 year old with the AK-47. We also found documents linking him to Osama Bin Laden. We even know that he met with Bin Laden. We also found mass graves and torture rooms, in case you haven't seen the pictures... What more do you want? I refuse to believe that just because Iraqis have been oppressed under Saddam for 30 years that they cannot understand or do not want freedom. Realize that what you are seeing on the news is a couple of trouble spots in an otherwise relatively peaceful country. Maybe there were weapons, maybe not. We certainly didn't find any, but... what do you think was in those trucks were that were seen leaving inspection sites on satellite photos just before the inspectors arrived? The French ambassador to the UN suggested that maybe it was "perhaps a trucker's picnic" (direct quote). These are the people that know what's best for the world? Canada, France, Germany, whoever... they can throw all the money into Iraq that they want to. God forbid they get their hands dirty. But realizing that the U.S. has at least matched any other country in aid and also forgiven billions of dollars in Iraqi debt.

Not that they would be much help anyway... I'm sure you know about your (the canadian) government buying used military equipment and having ships sink at sea from malfunctions. To me it seems pathetic that the aforementioned countries are so mad that the U.S. has decided to enforce the U.N resolution that they all signed- the 17th one I might add.

If this is an invasion, why are they electing their own leader? Why are they finally being fed? Howcome they looked so happy when Saddam's statues were brought down?

I just see a lot of complaining and not a lot of action. But keep complaining about this "country of hate" or "great satan" or whatever other name you can come up with for us. Keep claiming you've brought peace to the world just by throwing money around. But realize Iraqis wouldn't be getting this money if nothing had been done, as countries like yours proposed.

Even if hes bad. As muslims they have to defend there leader against non muslims. Its like goin against your brother.

Wheres the proof? Do you know the story behind the men being "tortured?" We never heard of women being raped or children being tortured. The only rape stories we heard is from UDAY only.

WHat does this have to do with a kid defending his country?

Re read history. Muslims, christians and jews lived peace amongst each other. Read the history on the Abbassids.


I don't really think I need to respond to this. But I will.

"Even if he's bad"... what does this mean. He might not be? If you could ask those people in the mass graves, I would think they might tell you saddam is bad.

As for going against your brother... How can you believe that if someone is doing something wrong it is okay if they are your brother?

The proof of not just one man, but many men women and children being tortured are all through the news. It's well documented and well known, but I can't force you to believe it.

If the kid cared about his country, he would be for elections and freedom from oppression. I would suggest that he was fighting for Saddam, not his country, but I think the truth is he knows little about either. He is just doing what he is told.

So I should re-read history? The Muslims and Jews don't hate each other? wow. That's news to me, and probably the rest of the world.

zombiesarebad,

You are making lots of statements as if they are incontravertible fact. Almost every one of your assumptions are debatable, and have in fact been debated on this forum previously.

Perhaps you should spend some time with the search function in this forum to see what ground has already been covered.

I don't want you to think that because your assumptions of fact aren't being challenged that they are accepted as read. It's highly likely that many of us are just tired of going over the same old ground.

However, in my opinion at the least, one nation of hate is just being overthrown by another nation of hate. (Not all Americans are like this, neither are all Iraqis - I'm talking about countries as wholes) America (and unfortunately enough, most countries) has a record, past and present of hating Iraqis, of hating Muslims, of hating blacks, of hating gays, of hating neighbours, whatever.

Basically I just don't see the US having any right to proclaim themselves holier than anyone else, nor invading upon that premise.

Well, that Prime Minister actually just finished 10 years in office and has been replaced by the next leader of the same political party. However, he's not sitting around patting himself on the back. He's working to fix Canada's problems first, all while committing $300 million to Iraq to clean up the US's mess. Don't make assumptions like that.

I agree, very good point. With so many internal problems that the US has why do we have to go out and try to fix every other wordly problem.

I know that the American is always wrong in the eyes of the pacifist intillectuals across the globe. But it's time for these people to address reality. What should have been done in Iraq? The best intelligence in the world believed there were weapons of mass destruction. We know that he had used them in the past. He had invaded neighboring countried in the past. We know he was involved in training terrorists. We know that he had kicked out weapons inspectors in the past, wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections. He wouldn't allow inspectors into certain places... what were we supposed to think?.
Reality? Am I the only one that dares to say and to think "Who the hell cares"

As been mentioned so much in the past threads, there is no link between the actual attackers of 911 and Iraq. So we had no reason to go in there. So what if Sadam was a dictator, there are plenty of other dictators all over the world and yet nothing is done about them. Why, cause maybe they have something that Iraq does not have, actual weapons of mass destruction. Nothing/nobody stopped India, Pakistan, China, North Korea from getting access to A-Bombs. Why should we meddle in Iraqs affairs. Nobody asked us too. They weren't, are, or ever will be a threat to the US. Instead of putting our troops in harms way, spending billions of dollars and getting a hated reputation, we should be taking care of our own problems. Education, Immigration, Healthcare, etc etc. The only threat Iraq could at the time be able to do was strike Israel, no one else, and last I checked they (Israel) can take care of themselves quite nicely, Shoot even they have the A-Bomb.

TS out

I don't really think I need to respond to this. But I will.

"Even if he's bad"... what does this mean. He might not be? If you could ask those people in the mass graves, I would think they might tell you saddam is bad.




that i will not tell you. I know something but i'd rather have you guys hear it from the man himself.






As for going against your brother... How can you believe that if someone is doing something wrong it is okay if they are your brother?





Like i said. In OUR belief , we have to protect our country NO MATTER HOW BAD THE PERSON IS! Like i said before its like goin against your brother.








So I should re-read history? The Muslims and Jews don't hate each other? wow. That's news to me, and probably the rest of the world.




You're truly an idiot. GO READ!

I should have never gotten into such a discussion.Of course you should have. :) What better way is there for us to determine what we really believe? Discussion here has certainly changed my mind before, and I feel I'm a better person because of it.I know that the American is always wrong in the eyes of the pacifist intillectuals across the globe. But it's time for these people to address reality. What should have been done in Iraq?No one, without significant hindsight, can answer that. Time will reveal what should have been done.The best intelligence in the world believed there were weapons of mass destruction.http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-924.pdf

The UN seemed, to me at least, to have had decent wraps on the situation - more than the US did anyways. Also, if that's what the "best intelligence" agency in the world came up with, should we be trusting them?We know that he had used them in the past.So has the U.S.He had invaded neighboring countried in the past.Not neighbouring in the U.S.'s case, but we've certainly seen their invasions...We know he was involved in training terrorists. We know that he had kicked out weapons inspectors in the past,This I don't have enough information about, a link would be appreciated. :)wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections. He wouldn't allow inspectors into certain places... what were we supposed to think?Would the U.S. allow Iraq to fly over and perform unannounced inspections of their weapon stores? What are they supposed to think?

What I'm trying to say is that every one of us, American, Canadian, Iraqi, whatever, needs to objectively evaluate our own country's position before accusing another's.And now we know that he had people from the UN and the countries that were against the war on his payroll so that he could use oil for food money to arm himself instead of feed that 10 year old with the AK-47. We also found documents linking him to Osama Bin Laden. We even know that he met with Bin Laden. We also found mass graves and torture rooms, in case you haven't seen the pictures... What more do you want?Again, I'm not knowledgable enough in these issues to comment - a link would be appreciated.I refuse to believe that just because Iraqis have been oppressed under Saddam for 30 years that they cannot understand or do not want freedom.You refuse? You can't, or you won't?

Also, what is freedom? Those people had the freedom to attempt a revolution. They had the freedom to accept what was happening, or fight back. Hell, Saddam even had the freedom to do whatever the hell he wanted! If Saddam himself was demonstrative of freedom, is it such a good thing to have?
Not that they would be much help anyway... I'm sure you know about your (the canadian) government buying used military equipment and having ships sink at sea from malfunctions.Indeed I do know of it - the crewman that died was from my small town, and I personally know his family. I don't condone my country buying used equipment, and am upset that they did. I like my country, but I won't agree with everything it does.To me it seems pathetic that the aforementioned countries are so mad that the U.S. has decided to enforce the U.N resolution that they all signed- the 17th one I might add.Two questions here. First, what are we mad at/about? Second, can you provide a link to the content of the 17th UN resolution? I tried searching for one but was unable to find it, and I don't know what it is.If this is an invasion, why are they electing their own leader?Because the U.S. has dictated they do so.Why are they finally being fed? Howcome they looked so happy when Saddam's statues were brought down?Because they were happy to see him gone. Again, I don't like or condone Saddam, but I don't feel we have the right to say "we're better" and throw him into a cell.I just see a lot of complaining and not a lot of action. But keep complaining about this "country of hate" or "great satan" or whatever other name you can come up with for us. Keep claiming you've brought peace to the world just by throwing money around. But realize Iraqis wouldn't be getting this money if nothing had been done, as countries like yours proposed.You're right, I am complaining, but I have a valid reason to be doing so. However, you're wrong saying I'm claiming I've brought peace to the world. I don't even believe it can ever happen. The money the Iraqis are getting from us is because of what was done - to provide aid to those devastated by the attacks. It's not like we're buying everyone a new Rolls-Royce.You're truly an idiot.Please don't make personal attacks on any members - it's violating the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up. I can understand your frustration, but please be civil.

Sorry Heep. But hes goin around sayin that Muslims hate the Jews. I'm a muslim myself and im telling him its not true.

Sorry Heep. But hes goin around sayin that Muslims hate the Jews. I'm a muslim myself and im telling him its not true.

No worries, just remember that we all need to show respect to others, even if we don't receive it :)

They say that dissent is patriotic. Maybe it's true. It seems you are very loyal to Saddam's regime.
I'm not even going to discuss the fact that everyone believed there were weapons and all that, not just Bush. But come on. The insurgents are just innocent good people defending their country? Wrong! They're people who were loyal to Saddam or Bin Laden and trying to keep the Iraqis from being free. They are terrorists. I can't believe someone would think they are innocent good people.

Welcome to the political forums, feel free to draw on false logic and rewrite history if it pleases you ,but it will lessen your credibility.Try reading back through the archives,it will save us having to repeat ourselves yet again.

For the record,I believe that Bush is a worthless piece of shit.Only a fool ,however, would try to extrapolate from that that I am a supporter of any other terrorist leader.

You seem to have swallowed your poisonous leaders' lies quite happily.The ridiculous line about being 'either with us or against us' proves the totalitarian nature of his leadership.There are BILLIONS of us who see no merit in supporting either side of this conflict.There were many who saw from day one that the weapons propaganda was just a thin excuse for Bush to start a pre-decided invasion.If you are dull enough to believe that simply parroting the same old official lines over and over will somehow transform them into truths , you're in for a less than uncontested time in this forum.

Of course you should have. :) What better way is there for us to determine what we really believe? Discussion here has certainly changed my mind before, and I feel I'm a better person because of it.No one, without significant hindsight, can answer that. Time will reveal what should have been done

The UN seemed, to me at least, to have had decent wraps on the situation - more than the US did anyways. Also, if that's what the "best intelligence" agency in the world came up with, should we be trusting them?So has the U.S.Not neighbouring in the U.S.'s case, but we've certainly seen their invasions...This I don't have enough information about, a link would be appreciated. :)Would the U.S. allow Iraq to fly over and perform unannounced inspections of their weapon stores? What are they supposed to think?

What I'm trying to say is that every one of us, American, Canadian, Iraqi, whatever, needs to objectively evaluate our own country's position before accusing another's.Again, I'm not knowledgable enough in these issues to comment - a link would be appreciated.You refuse? You can't, or you won't?

Also, what is freedom? Those people had the freedom to attempt a revolution. They had the freedom to accept what was happening, or fight back. Hell, Saddam even had the freedom to do whatever the hell he wanted! If Saddam himself was demonstrative of freedom, is it such a good thing to have?Indeed I do know of it - the crewman that died was from my small town, and I personally know his family. I don't condone my country buying used equipment, and am upset that they did. I like my country, but I won't agree with everything it does.Two questions here. First, what are we mad at/about? Second, can you provide a link to the content of the 17th UN resolution? I tried searching for one but was unable to find it, and I don't know what it is.Because the U.S. has dictated they do so.Because they were happy to see him gone. Again, I don't like or condone Saddam, but I don't feel we have the right to say "we're better" and throw him into a cell.You're right, I am complaining, but I have a valid reason to be doing so. However, you're wrong saying I'm claiming I've brought peace to the world. I don't even believe it can ever happen. The money the Iraqis are getting from us is because of what was done - to provide aid to those devastated by the attacks. It's not like we're buying everyone a new Rolls-Royce.Please don't make personal attacks on any members - it's violating the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up. I can understand your frustration, but please be civil.

I agree, only time will tell who is right. However I do believe in principle that action is better than omission.

No, I don't believe the United States would allow Iraq to fly over it's territory... But the UN, who you claim has a good wrap on things, imposed this on them after they invaded Kuwait, not the US. And I'm not making accusations of your respective countries... it seems that the opposite is happening. There is nothing to accuse them of because they didn't do anything... that's what I believe their problem is. They are impotent. As far as the best intelligence agency in the world... not even the best is perfect. But all the evidence pointed in one direction, so I ask you again, what were we supposed to think?

And yes, I do believe that freedom is a gift that God granted to every human. That is my personal belief. People like Hussein take that freedom away. Now obviously we can't go to every country and depose every tyrant, but what should we do now? Apologize to Saddam and put him back in his palace? Maybe we should re-instate the UN oil for food program too so he can have some extra money to spruce up his rape rooms. Please read:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp

If you have to ask what freedom is then no amount of explaining would make you understand. And yes, anyone can stage a revolution in any country, free or not, but the fact is they stood no chance without being crushed and decimated. Furthermore I will not comment on your insinuation that freedom may not be a good thing. If yours were taken I'm sure you would think otherwise. I can understand arguments that maybe the costs were not worth the results, but saying that freedom is worthless or even bad does not even require discussion.

What are you mad about? The war, maybe?

Anything you want to know about this resolution and all previous ones can be found at www.un.int , including all it's signors and contents.

Well as for the US dictating they be free to elect their own leader... we will soon find out how they feel about this reprihensible act of "forcing" people to have this freedom by seeing what the turnout of at the polls is. My guess is that they will come out to vote despite the death threats that they do not. But we'll see.

My point exactly, they were glad to see him gone. Who isn't? So why is it you're saying it was wrong to throw him in a cell for his crimes? Is it wrong for criminals to be arrested? If so, is it wrong for the people arresting them to say "I'm better than you and throw them in a cell"? (By the way, I don't think the words 'im better than you' were said).

Even though you don't believe that peace can be brought to the world (maybe it can't, who knows?) does this mean nobody should try? If peace is brought to the world, it certainly won't be thanks to countries such as yours.

As for the personal attacks (you may be right, I could possibly be an idiot) While I don't appreciate them, many of us Americans have developed some tough skin these days. I'll be fine.

I have been wondering if Islam is in fact a religion of peace as claimed by so many. I want to believe it is, and in fact I do believe it is. But how can they be seen as such when so many outspoken muslims defend the actions of Saddam and Osama? These are certainly not peaceful people. And the incidents in Nigeria (specifically the beauty pagent incident) and other such places do not help muslim PR. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if it's true that Islam has been hijacked by terrorist extremists, why don't they come out against these people? Of course, some have but it seems that most defend them instead. Just because they are of the same religion hardly seems like a good reason to defend them... in fact it seems like more of a reason to resent them. If christians had this ideal, most major countries in the world would have joined Hitler because he was a christian. Would this have been the right thing for them to do? And to further this problem, we keep coming across examples of widespread extremism. Such as when the New York Times interviewed muslim students of the Al Noor Islamic school in Brooklyn New York. Students stated things like "a muslim who becomes a suicide bomber goes to paradise for that action", "They're [blowing themselves up to kill civilian] for a good cause", and "I think we'd all do the same". This stuff disturbs me. If I did not personally know several muslims (one who believes that the suicide bombers, Saddam and Osama are wrong and recites the verse of the Koran which states that it is wrong to kill yourself and others, one who (somehow) believes that Bin Laden is good but killing is wrong, and one who believes terrorism is okay and killing is not wrong). Another survey in Great Britain found that less than 20% of Muslim college student would fight for England, yet more than half said they would fight for Osama Bin Laden.

And why would they even want to fight for someone who is killing them? Obviously Saddam paid no attention that muslims are supposed to fight for each other no matter what.


By the way, Here are just a few links about the link between Saddam and Terrorism and Al Quaeda/ Bin Laden.


http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/104-04152003-74294.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297

sorry this is so long but I had a lot of questions to answer

Welcome to the political forums, feel free to draw on false logic and rewrite history if it pleases you ,but it will lessen your credibility.Try reading back through the archives,it will save us having to repeat ourselves yet again.

For the record,I believe that Bush is a worthless piece of shit.Only a fool ,however, would try to extrapolate from that that I am a supporter of any other terrorist leader.

You seem to have swallowed your poisonous leaders' lies quite happily.The ridiculous line about being 'either with us or against us' proves the totalitarian nature of his leadership.There are BILLIONS of us who see no merit in supporting either side of this conflict.There were many who saw from day one that the weapons propaganda was just a thin excuse for Bush to start a pre-decided invasion.If you are dull enough to believe that simply parroting the same old official lines over and over will somehow transform them into truths , you're in for a less than uncontested time in this forum.

I would be more worried about the credibility of conspiracy theorists such as yourself. You are free (lucky you!) to believe whatever you want about my opinions, president Bush, the war, whatever you want. But it does come across in your postings that you are on the side of terrorism, implying their innocence. And talk about ridiculous lines: Pre decided invasion? Do you have any sources to back up this claim? Or is it just another "official line" of the peacenik, like "Bush lies kids died!", or "no more blood for oil!

And personally I don't believe that I am "dull". But this is the second time that I have been insulted personally while trying to have a healthy debate. I refuse to reply in kind, however I would ask you to recall the agreement you made to enter this forum.

Quote: <HR SIZE=1>We know he was involved in training terrorists. We know that he had kicked out weapons inspectors in the past, <HR SIZE=1>This I don't have enough information about, a link would be appreciated. :)

Heep
Search the UN web site you will find the info you need. The UN has a good record on Saddam kicking out the insoectors and hindering the inspectors.

Saddam has met with terrorists but we will never know the outcome or what was discussed.

Quote: <HR SIZE=1>wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections. He wouldn't allow inspectors into certain places... what were we supposed to think? <HR SIZE=1>Would the U.S. allow Iraq to fly over and perform unannounced inspections of their weapon stores? What are they supposed to think?



If the US invaded another country and then surrendered signing a pact to allow inspections and fly overs the US would have no right in refusing the request. Iraq surrendered to the UN and stated they would follow the UN resolutions.Yet time after time Saddam refused to obey the cease fire agreement signed by him.


Also, what is freedom? Those people had the freedom to attempt a revolution. They had the freedom to accept what was happening, or fight back. Hell, Saddam even had the freedom to do whatever the hell he wanted! If Saddam himself was demonstrative of freedom, is it such a good thing to have?

You never lived anywhere but a free country. You don't know what it is to live oppressed. I know what oppressed feels like. They also had the freedom to get arrested, beat or killed for opening their mouths and speaking against Saddamn.

Quote: <HR SIZE=1>If this is an invasion, why are they electing their own leader? <HR SIZE=1>Because the U.S. has dictated they do so.

And how would you of handled this matter? Someone has to call the shots. The US is allowing the Iraq people to setup their own government. The US is allowing the people to elect their leaders.


Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by zombiesarebad



As for going against your brother... How can you believe that if someone is doing something wrong it is okay if they are your brother?


<HR SIZE=1>

Like i said. In OUR belief , we have to protect our country NO MATTER HOW BAD THE PERSON IS! Like i said before its like goin against your brother.


Mellow
If your brother told you to committwar crimes would you? If my brother wanted to break the law I would not break the law with him. I'm not going to sit in the same jail cell as he is. Wrong is wrong and there is no excuse for it.

As been mentioned so much in the past threads, there is no link between the actual attackers of 911 and Iraq. So we had no reason to go in there. So what if Sadam was a dictator, there are plenty of other dictators all over the world and yet nothing is done about them. Why, cause maybe they have something that Iraq does not have, actual weapons of mass destruction. Nothing/nobody stopped India, Pakistan, China, North Korea from getting access to A-Bombs. Why should we meddle in Iraqs affairs. Nobody asked us too. They weren't, are, or ever will be a threat to the US. Instead of putting our troops in harms way, spending billions of dollars and getting a hated reputation, we should be taking care of our own problems. Education, Immigration, Healthcare, etc etc. The only threat Iraq could at the time be able to do was strike Israel, no one else, and last I checked they (Israel) can take care of themselves quite nicely, Shoot even they have the A-Bomb.


TS
I would really like a link to something that says the US invaded Iraq because of 9-11. The US invaded Iraq because the UN set up sanctions on Iraq and Saddamn broke every sanction. Iraq was under the spotlight with the UN and all the broken resolutions and sanctions allowed the US to go in and take out Saddamn. If another country was breaking the sanctions set up I'm sutre the US would go in there also. But China, Korea have nothing for the US to claim in invading them. Bush named Iraq as part of the axis of evil, he set the stage for Iraq using the axis of evil.

Quote: <HR SIZE=1>The insurgents are just innocent good people defending their country? Wrong! They're people who were loyal to Saddam or Bin Laden and trying to keep the Iraqis from being free. They are terrorists. I can't believe someone would think they are innocent good people. <HR SIZE=1>
Would you defend your country if it were being taken over by people raving about how evil your government is? Guess what - you'd be one of the oh-so-evil insurgents. I dare you to go ask that 10 year old Iraqi found with gun in hand if he's trying to terrorize the world, or if he just wants his home back. Oh wait, you can't. Your country killed him.

Only reason for the 10 year old to be claimed as fighting for his country is because he is 10 years old. If he was 30 you wouldn't be saying the same thing. We don't know the 10 year olds story, he may of been forced to fight, he may of been defending his home we will never know whathis story was and anything else is a guess.

...No, I don't believe the United States would allow Iraq to fly over it's territory... But the UN, who you claim has a good wrap on things, imposed this on them after they invaded Kuwait, not the US....
See this is an example of what I was talking about. Posting stuff that is not fact.

It was not the UN that imposed and enforced the no fly zones - it was the US, France and the UK. France later ceased imposing the no fly zones.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/flyindex.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2002/1119nofly.htm

I could pull many other examples from your posts - however, since you are relatively new here, I'll refrain from doing so at this time.

As Taranaki said - Welcome to the Politics, Investments & Current Affairs forum.

TS
I would really like a link to something that says the US invaded Iraq because of 9-11. The US invaded Iraq because the UN set up sanctions on Iraq and Saddamn broke every sanction. Iraq was under the spotlight with the UN and all the broken resolutions and sanctions allowed the US to go in and take out Saddamn. If another country was breaking the sanctions set up I'm sutre the US would go in there also. But China, Korea have nothing for the US to claim in invading them. Bush named Iraq as part of the axis of evil, he set the stage for Iraq using the axis of evil.I too would like a link stating the reasons for going into Iraq. Reasons that would not change over time, reasons that make sense. The US loves to criticize the UN, and even wants them out of NY., and yet we go in for the UN to fight their cause. Since when has the US been the UN Army. There have been countless other times that the UN has been having problems with other nations, sanctions placed etc ( like those in Africa ) and yet you do not see the US going in as an extension of the UN. If I am not mistaken Korea has broken the agreement it made with the UN in the past and yet we are not all over them like we are with Iraq. Could it be cause they would actually use their WMD on neighboring countries as retaliation, and possible start a real global war. Who knows, but the fact remains that the US had no business in Iraq.

And yes, its true that Bush named Iraq as one of the three Axis of Evils in his address to Congress and the nation, why, the reasons still elude me. The real attackers were from Saudi Arabia and their organization was hiding out in Afganistan. Iraq was not even in the picture. Bush used the UN problem as an excuse to go in and take care of a job that was not done before hand when his father stopped at Bagdad in the first encounter.

There are countless topics that are discussed in here, some great and thought provoking. Some even that have changed my view on things. But no matter what one tells me about this Iraq fiasco, it still does not add up. The countless lies by the administration to justify the invasion. The mismanagement of critical information that leads one to think that the worlds greatest Investigative force is anything but that. Its sad, makes us look bad and the worse is yet to come.

TS out

zombies: It seems we've reached the point I reach everytime with everyone I debate with, and congratulations, I think we did it in record time :D

That point is where neither of us can proceed any further to change the other's mind. We've laid down the facts, given our opinions, and finally, exposed our cores principle differences, and from here I will agree to disagree.

I feel that action, except in extreme cases, merely causes a reaction. When that action is unfavourable, it causes an unfavourable reaction. Thus, I see declarations of war as destroyers of peace, no matter what the goal/end result.

In my view, I don't, in fact, see myself as free. I'm limited from doing what I want in soooo many ways. I can't smoke a cigar even in a bar, I can't drive my car as fast as I feel like going, etc. etc. etc. I'm not violently oppressed as the Iraqis were, but I'm no more free. People like Saddam and Hitler- they are the truly free, and it's scary. So no, I don't see absolute freedom as being a good thing.

As far as country accusations, we both made them, and now that we've seen our principle differences, both are meaningless. You've accused Canada of sitting back and letting things happen. I see that as a good thing. I've accused the US of getting involved where I feel it has no right to, however I'm sure you'd care to disagree.

As for putting Saddam in a cell - I feel that's the most humane and just thing that can be done with him, now that he's been taken, and I applaud the US for that. I just don't feel that the US had any right to take him in the first place. Again, differing principles.

Basically, I just hope the US motives are really true. I hope the new Iraqi government works. I hope this was all worthwhile. I hope the US won't get ever-more cocky and/or policing. I just doubt that any of those are/will be the case.

Oh, and I still can't find the resolution 17...tried the UN search engine, browsed around; can't seem to find it. Oh well, not a huge deal. Thanks for the links though, BTW - I love to learn. :)

...But no matter what one tells me about this Iraq fiasco, it still does not add up...

It adds up alright - it's just that people are afraid to accept what it adds up to.

I would be more worried about the credibility of conspiracy theorists such as yourself. You are free (lucky you!) to believe whatever you want about my opinions, president Bush, the war, whatever you want. But it does come across in your postings that you are on the side of terrorism, implying their innocence. And talk about ridiculous lines: Pre decided invasion? Do you have any sources to back up this claim? Or is it just another "official line" of the peacenik, like "Bush lies kids died!", or "no more blood for oil!

And personally I don't believe that I am "dull". But this is the second time that I have been insulted personally while trying to have a healthy debate. I refuse to reply in kind, however I would ask you to recall the agreement you made to enter this forum.


Is English by any chance your second language?I've made it crystal clear that I do not condone terrorism by Bush, Bin Laden or anyone else and yet you persist with this simplistic label that if I'm anti-Bush,I'm pro terrorist.Bush went into his first election with intent to invade Iraq if elected,if you'd like to go through the archives of this forum, the links have all been posted.
I'd like to know why you feel that you have been insulted, it has simply been pointed out to you that your labelling of myself as pro-terrorist is lame.
There has been no breach of the user guidelines, and if you intend to try and hide behind them every time someone gets the better of you in a debate, your tenure here will be short and humiliating.

Now,do you have anything to add to the debate, or did you simply chime in to question the right of the rest of us to hold an opinion that differs from yours?

zombies: It seems we've reached the point I reach everytime with everyone I debate with, and congratulations, I think we did it in record time :D

That point is where neither of us can proceed any further to change the other's mind. We've laid down the facts, given our opinions, and finally, exposed our cores principle differences, and from here I will agree to disagree.

I feel that action, except in extreme cases, merely causes a reaction. When that action is unfavourable, it causes an unfavourable reaction. Thus, I see declarations of war as destroyers of peace, no matter what the goal/end result.

In my view, I don't, in fact, see myself as free. I'm limited from doing what I want in soooo many ways. I can't smoke a cigar even in a bar, I can't drive my car as fast as I feel like going, etc. etc. etc. I'm not violently oppressed as the Iraqis were, but I'm no more free. People like Saddam and Hitler- they are the truly free, and it's scary. So no, I don't see absolute freedom as being a good thing.

As far as country accusations, we both made them, and now that we've seen our principle differences, both are meaningless. You've accused Canada of sitting back and letting things happen. I see that as a good thing. I've accused the US of getting involved where I feel it has no right to, however I'm sure you'd care to disagree.

As for putting Saddam in a cell - I feel that's the most humane and just thing that can be done with him, now that he's been taken, and I applaud the US for that. I just don't feel that the US had any right to take him in the first place. Again, differing principles.

Basically, I just hope the US motives are really true. I hope the new Iraqi government works. I hope this was all worthwhile. I hope the US won't get ever-more cocky and/or policing. I just doubt that any of those are/will be the case.

Oh, and I still can't find the resolution 17...tried the UN search engine, browsed around; can't seem to find it. Oh well, not a huge deal. Thanks for the links though, BTW - I love to learn. :)

Right. Agreeing to disagree does seem best at this point. But here is my "closing argument", so to speak. In the 90's when 18 American soldiers were killed by muslim extremists, Osama Bin Laden said "we now see that the american soldier is a paper tiger... this encourages our cause" because we pulled out after this incident... I think it was in the Balkans? Not sure. But the quote stuck with me. The thinking of these people I believe is that to show weakness is to encourage their hatred and further their desire to kill.
I have good friends who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. They all just came home for Christmas leave and told me about all the good things they are doing there. They say that most Iraqis love them. They hand out snacks to kids and play soccer with them, chat with the locals... they really believe in what they are doing and it's possible that this has influenced my thinking on this subject.
While it seems to me that being able to smoke a cigar in a bar and drive fast are and being shot for speaking your mind are in separate realms, I do see your point on this. But without trying to extend a debate which is over, I would urge you to realize just how much you've got, especially while there are people in this area of the world who had nothing and while they still have little, they do at least now have hope.
Sorry if I'm seeming sappy but I do prefer to see the mass graves half empty rather than half full.
So I guess now we just sit back and see how it all goes down, huh?

Is English by any chance your second language?I've made it crystal clear that I do not condone terrorism by Bush, Bin Laden or anyone else and yet you persist with this simplistic label that if I'm anti-Bush,I'm pro terrorist.Bush went into his first election with intent to invade Iraq if elected,if you'd like to go through the archives of this forum, the links have all been posted.
I'd like to know why you feel that you have been insulted, it has simply been pointed out to you that your labelling of myself as pro-terrorist is lame.
There has been no breach of the user guidelines, and if you intend to try and hide behind them every time someone gets the better of you in a debate, your tenure here will be short and humiliating.

Now,do you have anything to add to the debate, or did you simply chime in to question the right of the rest of us to hold an opinion that differs from yours?

Is english by any chance your second language? In case you didn't realize it, "dull" in most quarters of the english speaking part of the world is the same as "dumb". And by no means did I say you are a terrorist, I said that you seem to be sympathetic to their cause, though. This is my opinion about how you come across in you previous postings. If you don't want to hear opinions you shouldn't be here.

You can claim victory in this debate if you want, but once again that's just your opinion. Just like it's my opinion that nobody won the debate because nobody was convinced of anything.

And for the record I NEVER claimed nobody had their right to an opinion. Freedom is what I'm all about.

My final advice to you is to cool it.

My final advice to you is

Irrelevant. :rolleyes:

I don't usual bother with advice from people who either can't comprehend plain English, or choose to ignore it.

I DO NOT CONDONE TERRORISM

If you cannot get your head around the concept that being anti-Bush is entirely different from being pro-terrorism, you're wasting your time posting in a debating forum.Simple logic and the ability to take in both angles of the debate are a bare minimum to avoid looking stupid.

Flatrater- The reason i said that they must DEFEND IRAQ against any invaders no matter how bad there leader is. Let me make it clearer to you. It is up to the IRAQIS to remove Saddam and not the world. According to the Qur'an one self has the right to defend or remove the leader who is very oppressive but do NOT go against him by teaming up with the outside enemies or non muslims.

Go to www.islam-online.net (http://www.islam-online.net)

Very useful info there if you care to learn.